A US News and World Report article (12/31/14), What the Battle Over Abortion Will Look Like in 2015, should remind all of us concerned about reproductive justice that Republicans will control the Senate and the House of Representatives beginning this month. As much as Republicans claim to favor small and less government, we all know that when it comes to issues relative to human sexuality, they espouse as much government intrusion and regulation as possible. Although many Republicans are pro-choice, the party continues to allow its extreme right wing and Tea Party darlings to steer the votes and priorities. Reproductive decisions, sexual orientation, and even personal sexual activity preferences are of greater concern to John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and friends than ensuring that every child has food to eat, that people are working and earning a fair wage, or that the U.S. government is protecting business from cyber-attacks, and so on. It makes no sense, but it is a reality. It is reasonable to expect more attacks on reproductive rights in 2015.

The Republicans are on a roll. Just last month Missouri Republican Rick Brattin reintroduced a bill to require women seeking abortion to get permission from the father of the zygote/embryo/fetus. According to Mother Jones, Brattin’s bill would exempt “legitimate rape” victims. For a pregnancy resulting from rape to be exempted and the claim of rape “legitimate,” a police report must have been filed immediately after the rape. Oh yes, the Republicans are on a roll, seemingly even including distinctions about rape – Todd Akin style. Always claiming that the legislation is to “protect women,” these mostly male representatives apparently believe they know more about what is best for women’s health than, well, legitimate women.

Pro-choice Americans have got to step up to the plate in 2015. They must resolve to at least let their elected
representatives know their views. As fellow blogger and former lobbyist Pat Richards can confirm, it is very easy to contact members of Congress. One website that provides direct contact information of each congressional member is https://www.congress.gov/members. For state and local legislative representatives, The Library of Congress Thomas website provides links to each state legislature. Pro-choice people need to take a page from the playbook of the zealously anti-choice organizations like violence-promoting Operation Rescue and the various evangelical groups that pressure church members to attend sessions to write emails and make phone calls en masse. It can make a difference in the extent to which a member of Congress maintains interest in sponsoring or defending restrictive anti-abortion or other family planning legislation.

During my years directing a clinic, countless state and federal legislators shared with me that the primary reason they hesitated to have a stronger public pro-choice position was because they seldom heard from their pro-choice constituents, but they constantly heard from the anti-abortion groups. That needs to finally change – there is too much to lose if it does not. While NARAL and Planned Parenthood supporters often initiate outreach activities, they simply cannot compete with the church-sanctioned and sponsored groups in terms of numbers. It is also worth noting that politicians actually like to hear the views of individuals speaking from the heart instead of an organized script.

As much as we may see reproductive rights as an issue in which people do not change their positions, there are studies that illustrate that people do change their minds about polarizing issues such as abortion and gay rights. Minds change through personal experience or learning about the firsthand experience of someone they know, love, or in some way care for. Minds can change when we interact with others with whom we share general values and recognize that on polarizing issues with which we disagree, things are not so black and white, all or none propositions. No one should be fooled into believing that when minds change about abortion it is only to the anti-choice position. National Right to Life has done some great messaging in that regard. In fact, pro-choice groups could do the same.

Maria Rivera/Photo from Trust.org

In 2015 we can probably expect to see more legislation proposed to ban abortion as early as 12 weeks, more verbatim scripting for medical professionals to impose on patients regardless if true, and more unnecessary and invasive ultrasound or other testing. Before you know it, every woman who miscarries will be subjected to a law enforcement report and inquiry. Think that sounds extreme? Just take a few minutes to learn about Maria Teresa Rivera in El Salvador where all abortion is banned. She did not even know she was pregnant when she miscarried, but the judge did not believe her and sentenced Rivera to 40 years in prison for aggravated murder. Each and every anti-abortion bill proposed in the U.S. under the guise of women’s health is another step towards a total ban.

Time is of the essence for reproductive justice. When and whether to have children is a personal choice. Abortion is a personal choice in which women do not benefit from, and can be harmed by, governmental interference. Medical professionals do not need the input of politicians in the private relationships they have with patients. Please, be it resolved that you will share your pro-choice position and dedication to reproductive justice with your elected representatives beginning this first month of 2015.

Happy New Year John!
I happen to have a very dear friend who prefers bears. That is great, just fine if you do too.
I think Ilyse Hogue is sharp.
You will rarely hear me ask for money in a post. Don’t you think money is kind of annoying when the convictions people have can carry at least the honest facets of public awareness?
Glad to see you are still trying to learn about reproductive justice John.

I am just now realizing that I think I have met Pat Richards if he is the guy that kind of looks like a cross between Joe Scarborough and Matt Lauer? He did a presentation on this very kind of thing a few years ago. Thank you for including the links as you did because I for one am going to make sure to contact my reps at state and national level and pass on to everyone else I know. We cannot continue to allow the creep factor of fetus lovers to stop us from discussing the importance of women deciding for themselves what they must do or what their needs are when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

A National Advocates for Pregnant Women’s 2013 study “identifies hundreds of criminal and civil cases involving the arrests, detentions and equivalent deprivations of pregnant women’s physical liberty that occurred between 1973 and 2005, after the decision in Roe v. Wade was issued. In each of the 413 cases, pregnancy was a necessary element and the consequences included: arrests; incarceration; increases in prison or jail sentences; detentions in hospitals, mental institutions and drug treatment programs; and forced medical interventions, including surgery. Data showed that state authorities have used post-Roe measures including feticide laws and anti-abortion laws recognizing separate rights for fertilized, eggs, embryos and fetuses as the basis for depriving pregnant women – whether they were seeking to end a pregnancy or go to term – of their physical liberty. The findings make clear that if so called “personhood” measures are enacted, not only will more women who have abortions be arrested, such measures would create the legal basis for depriving all pregnant women of their status as full persons under the law” (NAPW).

We need to think, plan and act on the right strategies to make clear that no law should establish a separate and unequal status for women—that deprive women of their personhood. Ever.

Thank you for posting Kate! There have been several cases over the past couple of decades in which pregnant women have been arrested or had their civil liberties violated due to pregnancy. People tend to be extremely judgmental about these women, particularly if they are crack or heroin addicts — even some pro-choice supporters. I would like to see a day when more people recognize that in most or all of those instances, the women choose abortion as an absolute moral choice. They get punished for putting thought into an important event in their chaotic life.

I do support all pro-choice groups for their efforts, but, unfortunately, I do think as a collective they missed a number of opportunities to be effectively pro-active. About 30 years ago they fervently opposed individual state efforts to initiate constitutional amendments for reproductive rights, citing the expense and pushing a philosophy that electing pro-choice people was a better strategy.Rights have lost. So, you are correct that a lot of thinking, planning, and acting on the right strategies needs to take place. Thanks again for your comments.

No, Kimmie, they didn’t oppose transferring power from Washington to the states because of the expense, they opposed it because they were afraid of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the belief that justice is best achieved on the local rather than on the national level. And they were smart enough to realize that on the local level legally killing young people would have no chance

Kate, Dunkie is not much of a thinker. What you mention is EXACTLY what he and sidewalk counselor pals want to see, put women seeking abortion in jail so they can be controlled and give their baby to some “loving” whacko religious couple at birth if the woman still does not want a child OR, worse, if she can’t prove that there is a father or that she can support the child. Every abortion restriction since Roe has had the ultimate goal of returning women to pre-Roe conditions whether in attitude, law or both.

MTabb,
Just read or re-read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaiden’s Tale for glimpse of such a dystopia toward which this country is heading. I would say that Ms. Farrell is spot on. The prochoice community has been far too polite, far too patient, far too ethical and far too reliant on legislators and lawyer to do what is constitutionally right. They only respond to what they think will get them elected or re-elected, caving to the corruption of money–human rights be damned.

Correction: I was referring to those elected officials, when I wrote “They only respond to what they think will get them elected or re-elected, caving to the corruption of money–human rights be damned.”

Like “tough on crime” rhetoric, those in office often cave to monied lobbyists who want laws passed, under the rhetorical guise of “protecting women’s health”

to restrict/end abortion & contraception
to punish pregnant women who have addictions or miscarry
to punish and shame women who have sex

Kate, I agree with you on each comment. Do you have any idea the money donated to the anti-abortion religious groups or thugs like Operation Rescue? In the country I am from their protests would get them a lot of legal trouble no matter if there is political or religious agreement.

MTabb,
It’s funny that you should ask about money especially considering how very queer the protesters are about money. We have a protester named Tony who is forever ranting, “The Allentown Women’s Center only wants to take your money. They don’t want to help you.” Of course, his talk is cheap, like most of the curbside terrorists. He and others yammer endlessly about money that the clinic earns while ignoring the realities of the money that obstetricians earn. For example, an abortion costs on average $500 while prenatal care is averaged at $2,000 and a vaginal delivery is on average $9,600. And, of course, they ignore the endless pleas for money from the likes of Catholic churches. Read a year’s worth of church bulletins and you’ll soon realize that money, not charity, is the common denominator. One such related organization that is money-centric and anti-abortion, anti-woman, and surely homophobic is the Knights of Columbus.

The Knights of Columbus is a 501(c)(8) tax-exempt not-for-profit entity – who has funded a who’s who of the American right, with donations going to such anti-choice and anti-gay organizations as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the National Organization for Marriage, the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, Americans United for Life, the Federalist Society, the Susan B. Anthony List, the Human Life Foundation. In particular, the Knights have donated more than $7 million to anti-same-sex marriage ballot initiatives across the country. It contributed $1.153 million to ProtectMarriage.com, which promoted California’s anti-marriage equality Proposition 8 in 2008, and later another $500,000 to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.

The Knights of Columbus has also purchased ultrasound machines for crisis pregnancy centers at a cost of 8.5 million dollars.

Their abundant funding comes from their very profitable insurance business—the amount of life insurance in force more than doubled from $40 billion in 2000 to a current total of more than $86 billion.

This organization was founded as a mutual aid society but has devolved into an organization which uses such catchphrases as “life and family” or “marriage and family,” and yet has such a narrow view of family and has firmly planted itself in the forefront of discrimination and bigotry.

Then there are other self-righteous, money-groveling groups like Priests for Life, Operation Rescue and others.

Ah, the Knights of Columbus. My pastor started a branch last month. About fifty of us showed up for step 1 where we learned what they’re all about.

I noticed on the back of the application form they distributed this sentence: “A knight accepts all the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

So during the question period at the end of the meeting, I asked, “The Church teaches that contraception is a horror, a mortal sin. Do I have to accept that teaching too?”

The guy running the meeting gulped, fumbled through some papers, and then called out, “Monsignor, Monsignor, we need you to answer a question.”

Monsignor had left the room so somebody went to get him and we turned to other questions. About ten minutes later the monsignor called out from the back of the room, “That’s between the penitent and his confessor.”

John– I am curious if you consider contraception a “horror,” all of it or some of it? It has interested me over the years that the Church has not lightened up given that most Catholics (at least in the US) seem okay with it and use it themselves. My Catholic relatives have a range of views; surprisingly, the range is not based on generational lines.

It’s not I, Kimmie, who considers contraception a horror, it’s my church. To avoid being a hypocrite or a heretic I have to go along with what she teaches. She says contraception is a sin, not the venial kind that will weaken you but the mortal kind that will send you into the everlasting flames of hell. That’s why believing Catholics call mortal sin a horror.

My oldest son, 48, is back living with my wife and me and dying of cancer. He screams in pain, usually in the mornings. I’m living with his pain and don’t want to spend eternity in my own profoundly worse pain than his now.

You’re right, though — most Catholics do seem okay with it. It’s the major reason why after forty years we are still murdering over a million young people annually.

So, all of it. And, Kimmie, you’ve made me happy to know that it’s not just us old guys who believe.

So sorry John – I can very much relate to caring for a family member at the end of life and I too send good karma from a loving heart. I am sure you are doing a great job and that your son cherishes the family comfort.

John, of course young people believe! It is also young people who believe who later question and either affirm or disavow those beliefs, or tailor what they do and do not believe, right? I do not hide that I support each individual in whatever their path towards (or away from) religiosity or spirituality and feel kind of lucky that I was exposed to a range of religions (and the faithful to those religions).

Your comment that you “go along” to “avoid being a hypocrite or heretic” prompts me to now ask you how you reconcile having an independent belief in which contraception is okay, or can be okay, and still think that you are in fact going along or following doctrine? I ask out of curiosity and not with an accusatory tone. It fascinates me how people express or experience their dedication to religion.

Good post, Kimmie. I “go along” out of love, which I’ll elaborate on sometime if you want. So, even though I might not accept something the Church teaches, I go along with her.

Here’s one example of several: After having read Romeo and Juliet and seen Dead Man Walking, I had convinced myself that the death penalty must be part of a civilized country. Almost immediately the pope says that in the First World it’s immoral to impose it. I accept that even though I still think he’s wrong.

Furthermore, every other time I’ve disagreed with the Church, the passage of time has proven her right and me wrong. I’ll elaborate on that too if you want.

Kate, I learned a lot from you and thankful to do so. I don’t understand how the organizations you mentioned can be called nonprofit when they seem to get a lot of profit. It is fine to me for any charity to be supporting life, family and marriage but how they are allowed to do that without supporting all other freedoms for individuals escapes me. Do you know why insurance companies are so involved? Isn’t is much more in their financial interest for a women to have an abortion than a baby? I maybe missed something and will reread but it doesn’t make any sense.

MTabb, the K of C has a long history with honorable beginnings including selling life insurance to church members. They still sell insurance, as I mentioned. Their honorable beginnings have morphed from being a benevolent society to support for Catholic families who lost their breadwinner (meaning the man in the family) to a rabidly right-wing international organization that raises millions of dollars that are being poured into anti-abortion and anti same sex marriage.

More for MTabb,
Also obsessed with money is Frank Pavone, leader of the Priests for Life and affiliated with groups such as Gospel for Life Ministries, Rachel’s Vineyard, Faith and Action, and National Pro-Life Religious Council. While Pavone has allegedly received tens of millions of dollars in donations, he hit a bit of snag when he reported a 1.4 million deficit in 2010. Eventually, the IRS revoked Gospel of Life’s tax-exempt status because it failed to file any forms for three consecutive years, according to GuideStar, an online database that tracks nonprofits.

Then, in 2011, his superior, Bishop Patrick Zurek of the Archdiocese of Amarillo, Texas, recalled Pavone over concerns about financial improprieties and debatable management decisions. According to Religionnews, “Zurek denounced Pavone’s ‘incorrigible defiance of my legitimate authority as his bishop’ and suspended his ministry. It then emerged that Priests for Life had been badly mismanaged, running an unsustainable $1.4 million deficit and failing to make key tax filings or allow proper financial oversight and safeguards.”

Pavone’s past actions led Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, to suggest the corruption concerns came as no surprise. “Priests for Life’s ultra-right-wing positions on abortion and other issues have alienated many laypeople and priests alike. Its links to the antichoice movement’s extreme, aggressive fringe, such as Operation Rescue leaders Randall Terry and Reverend Philip “Flip” Benham, have been a constant scandal. Ultimately, Priests for Life appears to never have attracted more then one in five US priests. Perhaps it was inevitable that his financial stewardship would also come into question.”

By December 2014, Cardinal Dolan announced that he was severing ties with Pavone’s Priests for Life. Dolan said that he told the Vatican that he was unable to fulfill its request that Dolan help Pavone restructure Priests for Life. Pavone failed to comply with Dolan’s mandates.

It seems to me that Pavone thinks his issue trumps every other issue including abiding by Church laws and sectarian laws. There are others who also believe that their anti abortion cause supersedes all rules. I’m thinking about Flip Benham, Troy Newman, Randall Terry and all their minions who infest sidewalks and curbsides outside clinics. How they handle their finances, however, is another matter.

While I totally agree that we have to be vigilant, that the pro-choice groups need to get their act together (dont hold your breath), the fact is that on the national level at least we are still relatively “safe” with Obama in the White House. In Congress, you can only go to the well so many times, no legislators wants to vote on abortion dozens of times so they have to pick and choose. This year I have no doubt that they will try to pass a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. That would pass easily (the pro choice groups do not know how to talk about later abortions as we learned years ago), but it it were a single bill, Obama would veto it, citing constitutional concerns. If I were them, I’d try a national clinic regulation bill but, again, Obama could veto. But if Ted Cruz or even Jeb Bush becomes president, we are totally screwed.

I stopped after four minutes. Lynn and her buddy are bothered by the fact that some lady used illegal drugs and got caught. If that’s the best they can do at the start, why should I waste my time on the next twenty-six?

Just read this post, so this is way out of order. JD’s first comment is that he doesn’t hate women and next “proves” it by claiming to be hetero. John, that only means you like sex with women. It does NOT mean you don’t hate women. I wouldn’t, however, use the term “hate.” You simple disrespect them and want to dominate women by keeping ’em “pregnant and in the kitchen,” though maybe not barefoot. Just like Muslim extremists.